Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

Threads like this are the reason why this forum is a shell of what it used to be.

You say this like you are innocent, when in reality you contribute. (that is assuming anyone agrees with you)

You have always had a very narrow and focused concept of what you think HTPC is, and is not. I think the entire segment has just deviated from that. You used to hold in common values what 75% of the other posters did but today the forum and the HTPC category is more segmented and you probably only hold a 30% commonality. You clearly are bitter about this some days, but it's no ones fault. It's evolution.

On the bottom end you get the ultra lower power, ultra small, OPENELEC streamer boxes people try to build for under $100, and on the upper end you get the $1000+ HTPC with 4 cores, Video cards, and a set up to do Jinc3/madvr and 60fps interpolation. Some even trying to do 4k upconversion with 4k resolution projectors or displays. Some people building very robust servers with quad core parts, SSD and running multiple virtual machines on ESXi, others building very high IOPS hardware raid servers, and on the opposite end people buying $300 prebuilt NAS boxes.

HTPC is just more segmented these days, and lots less people need hardware advice. There is little left that is tricky or requires a community of development to work out bugs. HTPC is easy today relatively speaking. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think you are not seeing the entirety of the reasons why (or that you are guilty of that which you accuse others)

Most of the forward development in this forum these days seems to be in key critical areas you seem traditionally opposed against. MadVR and high end video rendering is one example. 0-255 hacking/testing/development is another. Also areas like HTPC display and video calibration; SVP frame interpolation, non MS based configurations, Virtual machines and clients, High end hardware builds, HTPC as an AVR processor or video processor, High performance/high capacity media servers.....

There is a lot more to HTPC than just picking out a dual core Pentium vs i3, choosing some modest high value hardware and setting up XBMC to play back movies. <- There is only so much discussion about doing that for so long before it fizzles out.

Every time I see a thread about 0-255 issues, display calibration, high end processing, madvr, SVP, High end hardware builds, or high performance media servers you are no where in sight. The few occasions I do see you it tends to be negative in nature, such as you don't need this, you don't need that etc... I've seen you speak out against madvr rendering, and I am not sure you are even concerned with 6500k display calibration, 0-255 levels or having anything to do with high end builds.

I don't think you like AVS as much these days, and that is evident in your confrontational and sometimes bitter and negative attitude towards certain topics and posters. I think much of the "core" of HTPC that you loved has spread out all over the place in different directions. You've always been pretty mainstream and value oriented in your approach to HTPC, and that's good! But I think there is just generally much less to talk about these days about that. Less interesting or new products. Less interesting or new developments. Less interesting and new software.

Perhaps MB3 Theater will spark up some cool stuff. The theme videos and theme music plugins are killer, and it's a pretty easy way to use MADVR (click, click done ) It's modern, it transcodes, and it uses a server client that can feed Roku, Linux, WMC, MB3T, iOS, and android. That should be somewhat interesting, but I suspect some of the hardcore XBMC users will find fault with something for no other reason than it's different from how they do it now. We will have the bickering there too I guess.

I remember the bickering about SSD is worth it for HTPC. I remember the bickering about HDD's. I remember the bickering about one brand SSD being better choice than another. I remember the bickering about AMD vs Intel or Radeon vs Nvida. I remember the bickering of XBMC vs MB2. I'm sure this forum will survive. Looking back on some of those is almost funny today- where we would passionately argue one SSD was better or worse than another- how one was reliable or another was not- Yet today it matters not. They are highly commoditized and even the "crappy" ones are pretty good (and pretty reliable) making all those threads and arguments pointless. The same will happen here. Just as it happened when we fought that SSD was needed for HTPC or not- and HDD users defended using HDD for HTPC claiming benefits would not be seen in a simple HTPC for playback of video that does not get restarted. (what BS that turned out to be ) Today most use SSD, and most feel it's better (it is). It's just evolution, things change. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."

You say it *might* be possible. I'm telling you it is not only possible, but it is happening in my laundry room this very second. Are you calling me a liar, or can you drop that *might* and just admit that your generalization wasn't true?

Sure. Drop the * from might.

I already conceded it was possible, the " * " was to indicate I felt it unlikely in general.

might (no *)

How's that?

It's certainly possible to use a server in a way that SSD might not show superiority, and I believe you that you do it if you say you do. I don't think you are a liar. Can we stop now ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."

If it please the court, the defense would like to revisit item A introduced by Dark_Slayer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer

To turn the argument, please provide any technical reasoning/methodology why you think an SSD would provide superior performance in the case I've attempted to describe at detail (which I'll repeat here)

Again, please demonstrate how the above list of items would be given accelerated performance by the clear "superiority" of an SSD

And it be noted that the prosecution's response was as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mfusick

Your punctuation, grammar, layout and general post organization and conciseness is epic ! ^ I'd thumbs up you for that even though I disagree a HDD can ever be as good as a SSD in any meaningful way as an OS drive.

The defense thanks you for your kind words

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mfusick

It's certainly possible to use a server in a way that SSD might not show superiority

In reality, why do we have to use "might" not or "would minimize the obvious"?? For the three use cases I mentioned above, an SSD *DOES* *NOT* have any superiority.

Disk I/O is not bottlenecked in such cases. The reason I would marginalize the "clear benefits" that are sidestepped in getting to that point is because they are often done once and maybe 2-3 more times for tweaking. I have no plans to use video backdrops. I tried a skin in XBMC that included an add-on which began adding theme music to my TV shows, and I immediately disabled it. Plex can be managed via web, as can Flexraid. Neither program's web management interface is Disk I/O constrained.

Above anything else, hopefully any followers can take away at least two major understandings.

A server that is planned to do no more than the above three items would only be able to see SSD benefit upon initial install and setup (which is typically only done once) and reboots (which are often only done on power loss)

Passing file share requests "through" a very fast disk does not yield the same speed as a request "from" a very fast disk. If the file request isn't I/O limited (80 MB/s or less ~ safe, conservative number) then passing said request through an SSD cannot improve the performance a typical consumer drive would provide.

I never gave a crap about any of that. I just did not take kindly to the idea thrown about that SSD was not superior, and that it's not better (generally speaking) But mostly I was just responding to the attacks against me saying I was wrong. It's human nature to do that.

I'm open to the idea it's certainly possible to use a server in a specific special and isolated way that would minimize SSD superiority,( main way being use the server in a way that does not require the OS drive and OS to do much at all ) if others are open to the possibility it's far more likely that you can use a server in a way that would demonstrate SSD superiority.

Reasonableness!!!!

If you have to do a bunch of stuff to your server where SSD > HDD is evident just to get to a point that you can use the server in a way where SSD= HDD (and HDD is never better only equal) then it's really a pretty silly argument. This whole argument is silly.

SSD > HDD.

That's the only important part^

This is really the same argument we had two years ago when people said HTPC did not need SSD and there was no benefit at all for video playback.

Remember that ?

Yes that happened! With regularity. While it's true during the act of playing a movie you don't see very much benefit if any at all from SSD from the moment the video starts until it stops- everyone around here knows the benefits of SSD are pretty big and pretty obvious on tons of places.

This is the same thing.

Same as saying there is no benefit of SSD for HTPC. All the same arguments. It's silly. It really is.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."

I already conceded it was possible, the " * " was to indicate I felt it unlikely in general.

might (no *)

How's that?

It's certainly possible to use a server in a way that SSD might not show superiority, and I believe you that you do it if you say you do. I don't think you are a liar. Can we stop now ?

No we can't. Of all the asinine things you've said thus far, that is by far the most insulting.

Either you believe me or you don't. If you believe me there is no "might" there is no "*might*" there is no "maybe" there is no question about it. It isn't possible, It is reality.

Right now it just looks like you're doing everything you can to save face and not admit that your over-generalization was wrong. You've been cornered twice, and all you could do was duck the issue and just say "KILL IT WITH FIRE" again, but I'm not letting you off the hook this time.

You made an absolute statement. I'm claiming something contrary. So either you believe me, and you're wrong, or you think I'm lying, and you're right. Honestly, I don't really care either way, as I value your opinion about as much as you value an HDD OS drive, but I'd like to get a concrete answer out of you before all is said and done. Are you wrong, or am I a liar?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.

This is really the same argument we had two years ago when people said HTPC did not need SSD and there was no benefit at all for video playback.

Remember that ?

Yes that happened! With regularity. While it's true during the act of playing a movie you don't see very much benefit if any at all from SSD from the moment the video starts until it stops- everyone around here knows the benefits of SSD are pretty big and pretty obvious on tons of places.

This is the same thing.

Same as saying there is no benefit of SSD for HTPC. All the same arguments. It's silly. It really is.

Mediabrowser used to cache in RAM. Then it got too fat for most typical RAM installations, but even before that huge libraries would outgrow ram and pagefile the hard drive. SSD would help there, but for people who's cache was within RAM size it didn't. I believe that sometime in a post-major release just prior Atlas, mediabrowser curbed the library/ram cache for stability.

I've ran OpenELEC w/ and w/o an SSD, and neither way did it suck. Sorry, there are just several ways to skin a cat.

Generally speaking, in the sense of a Windows workstation, desktop, high end HTPC, or server also used as such - an SSD install will flat out murder the HDD install

I never gave a crap about any of that. I just did not take kindly to the idea thrown about that SSD was not superior, and that it's not better (generally speaking)

Sigh... NO ONE said that an SSD isn't better, generally speaking. They said it isn't better in specific instances. And I hate to break it to you, but if it isn't better in specific instances, it isn't always better.

Quote:

But mostly I was just responding to the attacks against me saying I was wrong. It's human nature to do that.

And it's human nature to tell people they are wrong, especially when they are wrong in all caps, with a flame thrower. Stop being wrong, and people will probably stop calling you on it.

Quote:

I'm open to the idea it's certainly possible to use a server in a specific special and isolated way that would minimize SSD superiority,( main way being use the server in a way that does not require the OS drive and OS to do much at all ) if others are open to the possibility it's far more likely that you can use a server in a way that would demonstrate SSD superiority.

Here we go again.

File servers aren't isolated. Just because you've never built an actual file server doesn't mean they aren't common. It it isn't about minimizing SSD superiority. If an SSD would have been a superior choice I would have put an SSD in the box to begin with. I didn't do anything special on my server other than use the most logical components to build a server to suit my needs. An SSD simply isn't superior in the application that I have.

Quote:

Reasonableness!!!!

If you have to do a bunch of stuff to your server where SSD > HDD is evident just to get to a point that you can use the server in a way where SSD= HDD (and HDD is never better only equal) then it's really a pretty silly argument. This whole argument is silly.

SSD > HDD.

That's the only important part^

I guess you haven't been reading any of my posts. I didn't do anything on my server where SSD > HDD. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. None. Nothing was IO bound, nothing was waiting on the HDD. Setup would have taken the exact same time. Configuration would have taken the exact same time, file sharing would still show the exact same performance. And that's all that server has ever done.

Quote:

This is really the same argument we had two years ago when people said HTPC did not need SSD and there was no benefit at all for video playback.

Remember that ?

Yes that happened! With regularity. While it's true during the act of playing a movie you don't see very much benefit if any at all from SSD from the moment the video starts until it stops- everyone around here knows the benefits of SSD are pretty big and pretty obvious on tons of places.

This is the same thing.

Same as saying there is no benefit of SSD for HTPC. All the same arguments. It's silly. It really is.

Well, if you're suggesting that an SSD is the best overall choice for every HTPC, then yes it is the same thing because you'd be wrong about that too. It's an excellent choice for most HTPCs, but it certainly isn't the best choice for all of them. You really, honestly can't see past your own experience at all can you?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.

I don't need to safe face. I don't care if I am wrong in your (or others) eyes because I believe I am right. I believe (generally speaking) that SSD is clearly superior to HDD for an OS drive. It's so evident to me in so many different ways I would never choose to use a HDD for an OS installation. I would rather burn the machine and quit using computers. I am not sure I can be more clear, or more extreme in my opinion and feelings on the subject.

I've never been interested in saying or proving it's not possible to use a server in a way that would minimize the superiority of SSD. Why would I care about that ? I only was interested in expressing how ridiculous it was for you to suggest that SSD is not superior, and especially if you needed to experience the superiority of SSD just to get to the point where it would vanish or not be clearly evident.

That makes no sense.

It just does not.

I'm sorry. It could be me. I'll take the blame for the sake of ending the argument. It just makes no sense to me.

You are the one that is obsessed with saving face. What exactly do you want me to say ? Just type if for me so I can copy and paste it back to you and we can be done with this please.

How about this:

ajhieb is right and I am wrong. Clearly HDD is as good a SSD in special isolated circumstances that don't require much of anything from your OS or your OS drive. HDD is equal to SSD when your OS does nothing. It's not just possible that you *might* be able to use a server in a way that would minimize SSD superiority. It's a demonstrable fact that if you use your server in a way that requires absolutely nothing from your OS and your OS drive then it's certainly the case where a HDD is equal to a SSD.
It's far more likely however that you might experience where an SSD > HDD for a media server OS drive if you tried to do anything meaningful with your server either directly on it or remotely.

Is that what you want to hear ? Feel better?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."

I don't need to safe face. I don't care if I am wrong in your (or others) eyes because I believe I am right.(1)I believe (generally speaking) that SSD is clearly superior to HDD for an OS drive.(2) It's so evident to me in so many different ways I would never choose to use a HDD for an OS installation. I would rather burn the machine and quit using computers. I am not sure I can be more clear, or more extreme in my opinion and feelings on the subject.(3)

1) You're beliefs have no bearing if you are actually right or wrong. Only the facts will bear that out.
2) That's your opinion, and one I happen to share with you.
3) That's a completely irrational response, but to each his own.

Quote:

I've never been interested in saying or proving it's not possible to use a server in a way that would minimize the superiority of SSD.(4) Why would I care about that ? I only was interested in expressing how ridiculous it was for you to suggest that SSD is not superior, and especially if you needed to experience the superiority of SSD just to get to the point where it would vanish or not be clearly evident.(5)

4) That's an interesting statement coming from a man that vehemently stated that SSDs were always superior. A stance you didn't waiver from for quite some time.
5) Sigh... SSDs aren't superior in every instance, so it isn't ridiculous to suggest such. Nor did I ever have to experience any alleged superiority to get to any other point with my server. That superiority only ever existed in your head.

Quote:

That makes no sense.

It just does not.

I'm sorry. It could be me. I'll take the blame for the sake of ending the argument. It just makes no sense to me.

You say that now, but I have the distinct feeling you'll continue to say that SSDs are always superior*

*except when they aren't**

**which is never because they're always superior***

*** but yeah, you're right, that one example you listed might sorta kinda be an exception****

****haha, just kidding, there are no exceptions, SSDs are always better.

(or something like that)

Quote:

You are the one that is obsessed with saving face. What exactly do you want me to say ? Just type if for me so I can copy and paste it back to you and we can be done with this please.

Well since you asked, how about this:

SSDs are generally a better choice for an OS drive than an HDD, however there are some cases where an HDD is just as good. <-- That's not so bad, is it?

Of course, if you insist on adding one of your smart-aleck addendums, might I suggest:

Granted, those special cases are completely beyond my grasp, and I can't really fathom how they work because they are utterly foreign to me, but I know they do exist in a very real and tangible way.

Or you could just answer this question:

You made an absolute statement. I'm claiming something contrary. So either you believe me, and you're wrong, or you think I'm lying, and you're right. Honestly, I don't really care either way, as I value your opinion about as much as you value an HDD OS drive, but I'd like to get a concrete answer out of you before all is said and done. Are you wrong, or am I a liar?

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.

You say this like you are innocent, when in reality you contribute. (that is assuming anyone agrees with you)

You have always had a very narrow and focused concept of what you think HTPC is, and is not. I think the entire segment has just deviated from that. You used to hold in common values what 75% of the other posters did but today the forum and the HTPC category is more segmented and you probably only hold a 30% commonality. You clearly are bitter about this some days, but it's no ones fault. It's evolution.

On the bottom end you get the ultra lower power, ultra small, OPENELEC streamer boxes people try to build for under $100, and on the upper end you get the $1000+ HTPC with 4 cores, Video cards, and a set up to do Jinc3/madvr and 60fps interpolation. Some even trying to do 4k upconversion with 4k resolution projectors or displays. Some people building very robust servers with quad core parts, SSD and running multiple virtual machines on ESXi, others building very high IOPS hardware raid servers, and on the opposite end people buying $300 prebuilt NAS boxes.

HTPC is just more segmented these days, and lots less people need hardware advice. There is little left that is tricky or requires a community of development to work out bugs. HTPC is easy today relatively speaking. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think you are not seeing the entirety of the reasons why (or that you are guilty of that which you accuse others)

Most of the forward development in this forum these days seems to be in key critical areas you seem traditionally opposed against. MadVR and high end video rendering is one example. 0-255 hacking/testing/development is another. Also areas like HTPC display and video calibration; SVP frame interpolation, non MS based configurations, Virtual machines and clients, High end hardware builds, HTPC as an AVR processor or video processor, High performance/high capacity media servers.....

There is a lot more to HTPC than just picking out a dual core Pentium vs i3, choosing some modest high value hardware and setting up XBMC to play back movies. <- There is only so much discussion about doing that for so long before it fizzles out.

Every time I see a thread about 0-255 issues, display calibration, high end processing, madvr, SVP, High end hardware builds, or high performance media servers you are no where in sight. The few occasions I do see you it tends to be negative in nature, such as you don't need this, you don't need that etc... I've seen you speak out against madvr rendering, and I am not sure you are even concerned with 6500k display calibration, 0-255 levels or having anything to do with high end builds.

I don't think you like AVS as much these days, and that is evident in your confrontational and sometimes bitter and negative attitude towards certain topics and posters. I think much of the "core" of HTPC that you loved has spread out all over the place in different directions. You've always been pretty mainstream and value oriented in your approach to HTPC, and that's good! But I think there is just generally much less to talk about these days about that. Less interesting or new products. Less interesting or new developments. Less interesting and new software.

Perhaps MB3 Theater will spark up some cool stuff. The theme videos and theme music plugins are killer, and it's a pretty easy way to use MADVR (click, click done ) It's modern, it transcodes, and it uses a server client that can feed Roku, Linux, WMC, MB3T, iOS, and android. That should be somewhat interesting, but I suspect some of the hardcore XBMC users will find fault with something for no other reason than it's different from how they do it now. We will have the bickering there too I guess.

I remember the bickering about SSD is worth it for HTPC. I remember the bickering about HDD's. I remember the bickering about one brand SSD being better choice than another. I remember the bickering about AMD vs Intel or Radeon vs Nvida. I remember the bickering of XBMC vs MB2. I'm sure this forum will survive. Looking back on some of those is almost funny today- where we would passionately argue one SSD was better or worse than another- how one was reliable or another was not- Yet today it matters not. They are highly commoditized and even the "crappy" ones are pretty good (and pretty reliable) making all those threads and arguments pointless. The same will happen here. Just as it happened when we fought that SSD was needed for HTPC or not- and HDD users defended using HDD for HTPC claiming benefits would not be seen in a simple HTPC for playback of video that does not get restarted. (what BS that turned out to be ) Today most use SSD, and most feel it's better (it is). It's just evolution, things change. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

What parts are untrue garbage and what is the correct information? You do not feel MB3 will spark off some cool stuff? Your post says this is what you feel, since it is included in what you call "a bunch of untrue garbage".

Your post is unhelpful and only serves to show you do not like mfusick.

some form of server OS is required since you can't just plug all the drives into a motherboard and start sharing them. It also lets you install plex

Can you show that after everything is running, Plex will see increased performance by using a solid state drive for the OS?

Or can you only point out that everything boots/launches faster from a cold start?

The specific cases I mentioned (3 bulleted items in previous post) are literally from experience. By avoiding to respond directly to those items you clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding in WHS architecture and the process of debottlenecking, or you are being purposefully obtuse.

Easily show it; each time an item on the OS drive is accessed the improved performance of the SSD comes into play. Unless you can show the SSD will serve up the requested files as slowly as a HDD can serve them up (to whatever program requested them), then you must admit the SSD is superior than the HDD in that regard. You also keep pushing aside the initial boot up, the initial install, and any changes or updates to the OS that is made as well as warm boots (which are also faster, it is not just cold boots). Those count and are all part of why the SSD is better than the HDD for the OS drive. You already admit the SSD is better in these things (in a roundabout way), so why push it aside?

Each time the OS drive is accessed, the SSD will provide superior service over a HDD. It serves up the requested files faster, which is its primary purpose. Are you saying it will serve up the requested files as slowly as a HDD does?

Like Assassin, you are arguing what you perceive, not what is really there. You are basically saying "we all know the SSD is superior to a HDD for serving up files to whatever application is requesting them, but since I personally do not see an improved user experience I will say it is not superior". Your user experience not being improved does not change the fact the SSD is superior to the HDD for serving up the OS files. In this case, perception is not reality.

Easily show it; each time an item on the OS drive is accessed the improved performance of the SSD comes into play. Unless you can show the SSD will serve up the requested files as slowly as a HDD can serve them up (to whatever program requested them), then you must admit the SSD is superior than the HDD in that regard.

Each time the OS drive is accessed, the SSD will provide superior service over a HDD. It serves up the requested files faster, which is its primary purpose. Are you saying it will serve up the requested files as slowly as a HDD does?

No it doesn't. It only improves performance if that particular request is Disk I/O constrained. RAM still has more throughput than an SSD. I'm specifically saying what I've said, and yes that includes the FACT that an SSD as a server OS will serve up HDD stored files (like most every single flipping person's server in this entire thread) just as slowly as an HDD as the OS serving up those HDD stored files. It is now confirmed that you aren't being purposefully obtuse, but you simply don't understand

As to pushing aside, I gave cogent reasons for why those would be pushed aside. Go back and read them

What parts are untrue garbage and what is the correct information? You do not feel MB3 will spark off some cool stuff? Your post says this is what you feel, since it is included in what you call "a bunch of untrue garbage".

Your post is unhelpful and only serves to show you do not like mfusick.

The personal attack portions which for some reason are allowed to stand at this forum even though they are blatantly false.

I will not spend another second of my precious time on this thread or other which are similar.